Give me an example, please!

[ateista]

Why do you think God must intervene in these circumstances to justify Him being labeled benevolent?

I believe a number of example have already been posted wherein a “benevolent” parent stands aside while a child is allowed to experience an evil. Should the parent be denied this attribute (benevolence) because they allowed an evil?

Thank you for debating the actual point of this thread.

I will answer your first question later.

Indeed several points have been made for human parents, who allow something “painful” to happen to a child, or even expose the child to some pain which is logically necessary for some good to happen. Good example is to allow the child to undergo a painful medical procedure to cure an otherwise debilitating disease.

No problem at all. The point is that the human parents do not have “omnipotent” powers, which would allow a less painful procedure. They must resort to such sub-optimal methods, simply out of necessity. If they could just “will” away the disease, then they would.

As a first approximation: “benevolence is acting for someone else’s benefit”. I am pretty sure we can agree on this.

But that is only the first approximation. It does matter what kind of procedure is being applied. Example: if a doctor can cure a snake-bite by applying an antidote, but nevertheless decides to cure it by amputation, (all else being equal) then the procedure is not acceptable as a morally proper method. Do you agree?

If some pain and suffering must be allowed to some good to happen, it must be kept at the absolute minimum. One cannot just say that “pain led to good”. How much pain and how much good? Was the pain excessive?

Now back to original question: “one cannot be labeled benevolent or good, if he allows gratuitous pain and suffering”. Not any pain and suffering - only the logically unnecessary kind!

And thus the question arises: considering God’s omnipotence (which is understood as God’s ability to do literally anything, except creating a logical contradiction) how come that God allows all the horrible things (both moral and natural) to happen?

Please note: I do not ask you to justify all those atrocities. It is impossible for anyone - except maybe God, but he is silent.

All I am asking in this thread is to show one example, where even God’s omnipotence cannot solve the problem of effecting a greater good without allowing some pain or suffering (which we call “evil” for the lack of a better word)?

Some posters mentioned the Passion of Christ. It is not a good example, because there is absolutely no logical contradiction in God simply forgiving the sins of humans without “resorting” to this “sacrifice”.

Some other posters said that the unnecessary pain will be “rewarded” later. That is another incorrect reasoning. The later reward cannot retroactively justify a prior injustice. This concept would lead to the absurdity of beating a child for no reason at all, and the later giving him a candy bar (or a Porsche) as a “bribe” to “compensate” for the prior mistreatment.

Only a pain which is logically necessary to bring forth some greater good can be morally justified, and only if this pain is not excessive.

I am asking for one example.

 

[Philthy]

I gave you examples way back on page 1 of this thread. Did you ignore them? As a matter of fact you did.
You continue to operate under the illusion that if we propose an example that you would be in a position to actually determine the “appropriateness” of the evil involved in accomplishing good. It is simply ridiculous for you to continue to assume this. How many times must we repeat that we dont have the ability to determine all the good which results from an evil? It is no different than me asking you for ONE example where no good came from some evil. I could always argue that your perspective is limited and you could never prove otherwise.

 

[Sarpedon]

No problem at all. The point is that the human parents do not have “omnipotent” powers, which would allow a less painful procedure. They must resort to such sub-optimal methods, simply out of necessity. If they could just “will” away the disease, then they would.

If every little inconveniece and pain is just willed away by daddy, then the child will most likely grow up to be a snotty little brat.

 

[jmcrae]

Nope. The free will defense is null and void. The existence of free will only necessitates the possibility of evil, not its actuality.

Also, the actuality of evil is not necessary to allow the free choice of accepting God, and thus attaining eternal bliss.

Adam already did choose evil, though, so the question is moot - evil is here, and we have to deal with it. The only way God could make it go away is by causing each and every one of us to cease ever to have existed - and He loves us too much for that to happen.

Supposing no human being in all of history had ever chosen evil, despite being free to do so; we would instead be debating whether it is possible for a universe to exist in which there is evil, since (as sinless rational beings) we would be asking “What kind of an idiot would ever choose evil?”

 

[ateista]

If every little inconveniece and pain is just willed away by daddy, then the child will most likely grow up to be a snotty little brat.

And what is the point? We are not able to use optimal methods, God - supposedly - can. But also he could create an environment where the child would not become a “snotty little brat”. Or is that beyond God’s omnipotence, as well? Just “how” omnipotent is God?

 

[ateista]

Adam already did choose evil, though, so the question is moot - evil is here, and we have to deal with it. The only way God could make it go away is by causing each and every one of us to cease ever to have existed - and He loves us too much for that to happen.

God’s supposed omnipotence just keeps shrinking…

Supposing no human being in all of history had ever chosen evil, despite being free to do so; we would instead be debating whether it is possible for a universe to exist in which there is evil, since (as sinless rational beings) we would be asking “What kind of an idiot would ever choose evil?”

Yes, and is there anything wrong with this picture? I sure don’t see it.

 

[ateista]

I gave you examples way back on page 1 of this thread. Did you ignore them? As a matter of fact you did.

Well, let’s return to them. This is what you said:

• Without experiencing a hot summer (evil) I would never be able to appreciate air conditioning (good)
• Without the setting of the sun(evil) my appreciation of daylight would be eliminated(good)
• Without experiencing life without the fullness of God’s love and presence in this life, we would never appreciate an eternity basking in it.

Effectively you say that without experiencing something “bad” we cannot “fully” appreciate the cessation of it.

Now, do you practice what you preach? I sure doubt it. Do you keep hitting your thumb with a hammer, just so you can “appreciate” how good it feels, when you stop it? Do you abstain from eating and drinking for days and days, just you can “appreciate” the intake of food and drink “more”? Do you seek out illness, just so you can “appreciate” getting better again? If you would be consistent with what you “preach” you would… but I bet you don’t.

No, I don’t think that having something bad makes the following good “better”.

To answer your examples:

1. I would rather have a nice constant spring weather to some scorching hot, which necessitates air conditioning.
2. Night is not “evil” in any sense of the word.
3. Nonsense. You know nothing about what it will be in heaven, so you cannot posit your argument as if you had any knowledge about it.

You continue to operate under the illusion that if we propose an example that you would be in a position to actually determine the “appropriateness” of the evil involved in accomplishing good. It is simply ridiculous for you to continue to assume this. How many times must we repeat that we dont have the ability to determine all the good which results from an evil?

This is a variant of universal skepticism, which is not acceptable. Just because we do not have “perfect” knowledge it does not mean that we are unable to make moral judgments. As a matter of fact we do it all the time. Sometimes we may be mistaken, but it does not follow that we are always mistaken.

It is no different than me asking you for ONE example where no good came from some evil. I could always argue that your perspective is limited and you could never prove otherwise.

Yes I can. Your supposed argument would be incorrect. You would have to bring up some specific reason to show why my example is wrong. To say that without omniscince we cannot make moral judgments is only your - erroneous - opinion.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, and is there anything wrong with this picture? I sure don’t see it.

I wish it had happened that way, too - but it didn’t. There is evil in the world because Adam freely chose it.

His freedom to choose evil would not be freedom at all, if God then just took the evil away again - would it?

The only way to unmake Adam’s choice for evil is to unmake Adam himself - thus unmaking all of us, as well.

 

[Sarpedon]

And what is the point? We are not able to use optimal methods, God - supposedly - can. But also he could create an environment where the child would not become a “snotty little brat”. Or is that beyond God’s omnipotence, as well? Just “how” omnipotent is God?

God cannot create an enviroment in which a person has free will but lacks the ability to become a brat. Simply put, if a person cannot choose to be bad, then he cannot be said to be able to choose good.

The reason God created us with free will is because He wants us to be capable of love, in the same way He is (hence, “made in God’s image”).

 

[ateista]

I wish it had happened that way, too - but it didn’t. There is evil in the world because Adam freely chose it.

His freedom to choose evil would not be freedom at all, if God then just took the evil away again - would it?

The only way to unmake Adam’s choice for evil is to unmake Adam himself - thus unmaking all of us, as well.

Actually, no.

There are two logically (and epistemically) possible worlds: one where Adam freely “sinned” and two, where Adam - also freely - did not “sin”.

God could have instantiated either of them - since neither of them contains a logical contradiction. God chose to instantiate the first one - therefore God chose to instantiate evil. The third possibility - that God just “chose” to instantiate “a” world, where the “sinning” of Adam was unknown to God until it happened, contradicts God’s omniscience.

Since God chose to instantiate this world, he - knowingly and willfully - chose to instantiate evil - where was no logical necessity to do so.

Don’t forget, with absolute knowledge and power comes absolute reponsibility. God cannot “wash his hands” saying, “but I did not know” and “I was powerless to do otherwise”. He knew and yet he did it. All the evil in the world is the direct result of God’s choice to instantiate this world.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, no.

There are two logically (and epistemically) possible worlds: one where Adam freely “sinned” and two, where Adam - also freely - did not “sin”.

God could have instantiated either of them - since neither of them contains a logical contradiction. God chose to instantiate the first one - therefore God chose to instantiate evil. The third possibility - that God just “chose” to instantiate “a” world, where the “sinning” of Adam was unknown to God until it happened, contradicts God’s omniscience.

Since God chose to instantiate this world, he - knowingly and willfully - chose to instantiate evil - where was no logical necessity to do so.

Don’t forget, with absolute knowledge and power comes absolute reponsibility. God cannot “wash his hands” saying, “but I did not know” and “I was powerless to do otherwise”. He knew and yet he did it. All the evil in the world is the direct result of God’s choice to instantiate this world.

No. God created only one Universe, and He put an “if … else” branch into it. He may have foreseen what would happen, but He did not make it happen. Adam had the free choice all the way along.

 

[ateista]

God cannot create an enviroment in which a person has free will but lacks the ability to become a brat. Simply put, if a person cannot choose to be bad, then he cannot be said to be able to choose good.

Yes he can. All he has to do is to create the beings who (instinctively or knowingly) will choose the “right action”. They know about the wrong action, they can choose it, if they so desire, but are unwilling to do it. ---- I thought we already agreed upon this.

The reason God created us with free will is because He wants us to be capable of love, in the same way He is (hence, “made in God’s image”).

Again, I thought we already agreed that the existence of free will only explains the possibility of evil, but not the actuality of it.

This is what you said before:

(Allow me to jump in here)

I agree with this, and it is in line with Catholic theology. When God gave man free will, the possibilities of both good and evil came with it. Evil was only a possibility, because every free human could choose to not actualize it. Of course, we know historically that people did choose to commit evil, thus bringing it from possibility to actuality.

It is possible for evil to return to potentiality, if every single person stops committing it. This is what we strive for. Unfortunately, this will most likely not come to pass on this earth.

 

[ateista]

No. God created only one Universe, and He put an “if … else” branch into it. He may have foreseen what would happen, but He did not make it happen. Adam had the free choice all the way along.

That is not true. God could have instantiated either world, both with free choices. He chose to instantiate this one. Adam’s freedom is not impaired in either one.

 

[davidv]

Thank you for debating the actual point of this thread.

I will answer your first question later.

Thank you for your response. I will not, however enter into a debate on the topic. 1) Because in my view debate is only about winning or losing. I won’t go there. I am interested in a discussion that furthers my understanding. And, 2) I am a very unskilled debator.

Indeed several points have been made for human

parents, who allow something “painful” to happen to a child, or even expose the child to some pain which is logically necessary for some good to happen. Good example is to allow the child to undergo a painful medical procedure to cure an otherwise debilitating disease.
Your use of phase “logical necessity” in the context of the OP is not clear. There are other examples of parents allowing a child to experience a “bad” thing simply to allow them learn for themselves the natural consequences of there actions. The ulterior good in this case is the creation of self-discipline in the child. Many children at this stage would categorize self-discipline as a “not good”. So from their perspective there would be no good outcome.

I believe this circumstance is the crux of the problem with asking the question in the OP. We are like the child in the example who can see no “good” in the course of action that transpired.

No problem at all. The point is that the human parents do not have "omnipotent"

powers, which would allow a less painful procedure. They must resort to such sub-optimal methods, simply out of necessity. If they could just “will” away the disease, then they would.
It appears that you have changed the playing field here. Why is “pain” evil?

I believe that there is no power great enough to change the way one thinks. Therefore the presence or absence power has no bearing on whether allowance of pain is “good”.

As a first approximation: “benevolence is acting for someone else’s benefit”. I am pretty sure we can agree on this.

I can only partially agree, since your definition uses the word to define itself. Are not benevolent and benefit that same? Since this is a Catholic forum, shall we use the Catholic definition? Based on the CCC article 1829, Benevolence is charity, which is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. So for God, benevolence is love of neighbor (us).

But that is only the first approximation. It does matter what kind of procedure is being applied. Example: if a doctor can cure a snake-bite by applying an antidote, but nevertheless decides to cure it by amputation, (all else being equal) then the procedure is not acceptable as a morally proper method. Do you agree?

I agree.

If some pain and suffering must be allowed to some good to happen, it must be kept at the absolute minimum. One cannot just say that “pain led to good”. How much pain and how much good?

Since there is no reliable measurement of neither “pain” nor “good” neither us is capable of judging whether this formula is balanced.

Was the pain excessive?

Neither us can legitimately claim to know.

continued…

 

[davidv]

Now back to original question: “one cannot be labeled benevolent or good, if he allows gratuitous pain and suffering”. Not any pain and suffering - only the logically unnecessary kind!
And thus the question arises: considering God’s omnipotence (which is understood as God’s ability to do literally anything, except creating a logical contradiction) how come that God allows all the horrible things (both moral and natural) to happen?

Please note: I do not ask you to justify all those atrocities. It is impossible for anyone - except maybe God, but he is silent.

All I am asking in this thread is to show one example, where even God’s omnipotence cannot solve the problem of effecting a greater good without allowing some pain or suffering (which we call “evil” for the lack of a better word)?

To continue to insist that pain and suffering is evil is to ignore the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. I would kindly ask you to read the Apostolic Letter, SALVIFICI DOLORIS to better understand why we believe they are not evil.

Some posters mentioned the Passion of Christ. It is not a good example, because there is absolutely no logical contradiction

in God simply forgiving the sins of humans without “resorting” to this “sacrifice”.
If Jesus was who he said he was, then any pain and suffering that he endured had to “gratuitous”, as he was completely innocent of any wrong doing, and as God already had all the “goodness” needed. Do you agree?

Some other posters said that the unnecessary pain will be “rewarded” later. That is another incorrect reasoning. The later reward cannot retroactively justify a prior injustice. This concept would lead to the absurdity of beating a child for no reason at all, and the later giving him a candy bar (or a Porsche) as a “bribe” to “compensate” for the prior mistreatment.

I believe you missed the point. That being, the reward is compensation for the suffering, not the justification for the suffering.

Only a pain which is logically necessary

to bring forth some greater good can be morally justified, and only if this pain is not excessive.

I am asking for one example.

A number of examples have been provided, with rationale as to why they are reasonable.

As I said above, neither of us has the capacity to judge neither the goodness nor the painfulness of the suffering. So, there can be no logically justifiable classification of any suffering as to its necessity, making your dismissal of the examples illogical.

 

[Thing]

On several threads the problem of evil comes up. The theist defense to this problem is that even God, with his omnipotence cannot bring forth all the “good” things without allowing some evil to happen.

There is a usual allegory to highlight this question: it speaks of a child who suffers from a serious health problem and he must undergo some painful medical treatment to cure him.

The child cannot understand why he is subject to the painful medical procedure. He cannot comprehend that it is necessary to allevite his condition. It is morally permissible to expose the child to the pain and suffering of the medical procedure, because the greater good of curing him and the painful procedure form a morally justifiable set of actions. (Important observation: the greater good of curing the child does not justify the procedure, in and by itself.)

This allegory looks great on the surface, but it proves to be false under scrutiny. It presumes that medical technology cannot be improved - that is the pain involved in the medical procedure cannot be lessened. It presumes that child’s ailment is a given. None of these apply if we consider God’s omnipotence.

So I ask you to present an example, where God wishes to bring forth a “greater good”, which is impossible to do without inflicting / allowing some “evil” to happen.

It does not matter how “farfetched” the scenario is. It does not matter, if the “greater good” materializes in this life or in the afterlife.

The only restriction is that the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same. This is essential. It would be morally impermissible to use a human being as a “tool”, or as a “means” to bring forth some good that benefits only others. Basic Catholic teaching asserts that human dignity prevents from using a human being as a “resource”.

I tried to come up with a possible scenario, and so far I failed. So I am passing the “baton”. Can anyone come up with an example?

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

It is impossible according to God to have the ‘good’ He is talking about without also picking up ones own cross and following Him to Golgotha.

Will that do?

 

[jmcrae]

That is not true. God could have instantiated either world, both with free choices.

No. God “instantiated” one world. (God is not a philospher; God is a realist.)

Anything God thinks of exists, because God’s mind is the plane of existence.

Therefore, whatever does not exist, God did not think of. So no, He could not have “instantiated” anything other than what exists.

Adam’s choice was completely free - there is no “alternate universe” where Adam chose not to sin, that God could have instantiated. Adam’s choice was free in this universe, and in this universe, he chose to sin.

 

[Philthy]

ateista:

Well, let’s return to them. This is what you said:Effectively you say that without experiencing something “bad” we cannot “fully” appreciate the cessation of it. Now, do you practice what you preach?

It is irrelevent, however I do, in fact, practice what I preach, though imperfectly. The examples suffice.

1. Nonsense. You know nothing about what it will be in heaven, so you cannot posit your argument as if you had any knowledge about it.

Oh really? I thought you wanted arguments from the Catholic perspective. At least that is what you claimed earlier.
Neither one of us has an absolute knowledge of heaven - that remains the fatal flaw in your flawed logic.

Just because we do not have “perfect” knowledge it does not mean that we are unable to make moral judgments.

The point, if I havent already made it fourteen times, is not that we cant make moral judgements, its that for certain judgements we cannot know whether we are mistaken or not. We simply dont know. Such lack of knowledge renders your proposed standard of “proportionate necessary evil to accomplish good” just such a judgement.

As a matter of fact we do it all the time. Sometimes we may be mistaken, but it does not follow that we are always mistaken.

Once again you miss the point. The fact that we MAY in fact be correct in an assessment is fundamentally different than KNOWING we are correct. We don’t and can’t know the details you specified for justifying evil. Its really that simple. Your claim to “prove” God is not omnibenevolent simply falls flat on its face.

Yes I can.

Produce your example and we shall see. I doubt you have any examples and that is why you haven’t produced them as part of your proof. Even if you did, you must realize, however, that if you actually did produce an example, that by doing so the potential for more good (and evil) to be produced from it changes and therefore your assessment of the balance of good and evil pertaining to it will be incomplete.
Once again your argument falls flat on its face.